Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #84

[MistyWaters]

Could be. My only point was they hadn't filed against BL so it's hard for me to see why the L's would have been guilty of something van-related now. At any rate, I don't think there is anything in the complaint alleging the L's were responsible for the van being at their house.
JMO

If the van came into question, wouldn’t that be a criminal charge such as possession of stolen property or something? I don’t think Gabby’s parents could sue Laundries for something they didn’t own either, especially considering LE had it towed and no charges were filed.

 

[LinasK]

Florida Statutes
812.022 Evidence of theft or dealing in stolen property.—

(2) Except as provided in subsection (5), proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.

Chapter 812 Section 022 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

The argument could be made that they should have known...

 

[LinasK]

If the van came into question, wouldn’t that be a criminal charge such as possession of stolen property or something? I don’t think Gabby’s parents could sue Laundries for something they didn’t own either, especially considering LE had it towed and no charges were filed.

Gabby's van becomes part of her estate once she's dead, so yes her parents are entitled to it.

 

[MistyWaters]

Gabby's van becomes part of her estate once she's dead, so yes her parents are entitled to it.

But the circumstances are not that they refused to turn it over, nothing to sue over.

 

[RANCH]

The argument could be made that they should have known...

Why? We don't know what Brian told them. Maybe he told them Gabby gave him the van. Unless they confess to knowing the van was stolen which I doubt will happen. JMO.

 

[cady]

Why? We don't know what Brian told them. Maybe he told them Gabby gave him the van. Unless they confess to knowing the van was stolen which I doubt will happen. JMO.

Preponderance of the evidence in a civil suit? I don't know, but I am guessing that the evidence will show that they knew and realized they needed defense for a whole lot of stuff. jmo

 

[NCWatcher]

Florida Statutes
812.022 Evidence of theft or dealing in stolen property.—

(2) Except as provided in subsection (5), proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.

Chapter 812 Section 022 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

I'm not an attorney but usually when statutes have a numerical list of elements they all must be considered. Only #2 on the list of 6 elements that has lots of subsections is listed here..

I'm not sure this particular statute could apply in this case. It honestly doesn't make sense to me that a stand-alone law would say (in effect) "if you possess it, and it's stolen you are guilty because you should have known better." But that's what that single item seems to say. I'm also not sure one can argue the L's "possessed" the van.

But if it does apply, even the item presented states "unless satisfactorily explained."

I think since GP published in several places it was "our van" it's hard to make the claim the L's should have known that wasn't true. So I think they'd have a satisfactory explanation in the very unlikely event a Florida DA wanted to consider charging them.
JMO

 

[RANCH]

Preponderance of the evidence in a civil suit? I don't know, but I am guessing that the evidence will show that they knew and realized they needed defense for a whole lot of stuff. jmo

The Petito's aren't suing the Laundries for the van. It was impounded by the police. They make have possession of it by now.

I'm guessing that they don't have much evidence to support the civil suit. JMO.

 

[RANCH]

I'm not an attorney but usually when statutes have a numerical list of elements they all must be considered. Only #2 on the list of 6 elements that has lots of subsections is listed here..

I'm not sure this particular statute could apply in this case. It honestly doesn't make sense to me that a stand-alone law would say (in effect) "if you possess it, and it's stolen you are guilty because you should have known better." But that's what that single item seems to say. I'm also not sure one can argue the L's "possessed" the van.

But if it does apply, even the item presented states "unless satisfactorily explained."

I think since GP published in several places it was "our van" it's hard to make the claim the L's should have known that wasn't true. So I think they'd have a satisfactory explanation in the very unlikely event a Florida DA wanted to consider charging them.
JMO

I agree. I don't see how the Laundries could be charged with possession of stolen property or vehicle theft or anything related to the van. JMO.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Thanks. So it looks to me that the only way the Petito's can show in court that the Laundries knew Gabby was dead on August 28th is if they volunteer that information.

I don't see that happening. JMO.

Unless there are text messages discussing the untimely death.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

I believe that the atty is aiming for "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

What is needed to prove intentional infliction emotional distress?
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress. Google (not sure if FL law has any specific different definition?)

See item #24 and on, in the complaint. PDF: Brian Laundrie Suit | PDF

I did read the complaint and it repeats the common internet suggestion that BL was to leave the country and that the L's were helping him. (See #32) Have not seen what evidence there is of that ....

The Civil Case Cover Sheet states the complaint is for Negligence, not IIED.

 

[RANCH]

Unless there are text messages discussing the untimely death.

Good point. I didn't think of that.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Preponderance of the evidence in a civil suit? I don't know, but I am guessing that the evidence will show that they knew and realized they needed defense for a whole lot of stuff. jmo

Yes, in a civil lawsuit, the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, which means that the fact finder finds that it's more likely than not (or greater than 50%) chance that the claim is true. Also, the defendant(s) is either found liable or not liable.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Just a thought...

We don't know what was in the notebook. What if in the notebook, Brian not only took responsibility of Gabby's death, but also stated in there that he told his parents? MOO.

ETA: It would be technically hearsay, but I'm sure the Petito's attorney would try to get it in under a dying declaration:

In State v. Satterfield, 193 W.Va. 503, 457 S.E.2d 440 (1995), the court admitted a suicide note under the state dying declaration rule, which mirrored the federal rule. In Satterfield, a witness in a murder trial was "aggressively questioned" in a way that implied his participation in the murder. After the court day ended and before proceedings began the following day, the witness committed suicide. The witness left a note proclaiming his innocence and stating that he "just [couldn't] take the pressure of going through a trial." The trial court admitted the suicide note under the dying declaration to the hearsay rule. The court found that there was evidence that the decedent wrote the suicide note believing that his death was imminent because the suicide occurred soon after the note was written and the note explained the suicide. Id. at 450.

The dissent argued that suicide notes should not be treated as dying declarations:

[The declarant] was in complete control of the timing and circumstances of his death. The majority fails to distinguish the difference between [a] suicide note, and a statement made by a person facing inevitable death due to circumstances beyond his control. If ever there is a time to put one's best face forward, it would be in a note that will literally stand for all eternity as one's last testament. A suicide note is the *885 perfect opportunity to rewrite one's own history in a way calculated to impress one's final audience.

United States v. Angleton, 269 F. Supp. 2d 878 (S.D. Tex. 2003)

 

[Lillymac]

Why? We don't know what Brian told them. Maybe he told them Gabby gave him the van. Unless they confess to knowing the van was stolen which I doubt will happen. JMO.

After the van was located and towed away, to my knowledge not much was reported about it. I don't recall any reports about a forensics search or any details of what was found if they did one. As a matter of fact no one really even knew where it was for a time.

For me it was perfectly obvious when he returned alone in the van, he was responsible for gp being missing and ultimately her death. It was my feeling at the time bl didn't care what happened from then on. He could have escaped at any point but didn't. There are no valid reports he even tried to evade being caught. I don't think his parents had any control over him at that then. I'm sure they believed the worst had happened and they left it up to him to deal with his demons. You can love your children and hate their actions. I don't believe in anyway did they condone what he did, or hide him out, or protect him. There are things, I'm sure, we will never know pertaining to all the people involved in this tragedy. This is how it should be. And I'm sure there's plenty of blame to go around. I hope they all can find peace someday, but I doubt they will.

 

[RANCH]

Just a thought...

We don't know what was in the notebook. What if in the notebook, Brian not only took responsibility of Gabby's death, but also stated in there that he told his parents? MOO.

Then we go back to the Laundries staying silent to not incriminate themselves. Can they be sued for exercising their Constitutional rights?

 

[Satchie]

“In the lawsuit, Joe Petito and Schmidt say that the Laundries refused to respond to them or law enforcement when they inquired whether Gabby Petito was alive and if not, where her remains were.”
Gabby Petito's parents sue Brian Laundrie's parents, claiming they knew of her killing and were helping son escape - CNN

In those early days I’m rather shocked Pepito/Schmidt would’ve presented the possibility GP was dead to the Laundries and furthermore inquired on the location of her remains.

I agree, this story is dated Sept 13: "Missing woman's family slams online trolls targeting her fiancé"

It quotes from the Find Gabby facebook, "I just want to reiterate …WE ARE ONLY LOOKING FOR GABBY AT THIS TIME....Please focus all efforts on sharing her information. We are not talking about Brian or the van," they added. The article quotes from a press conference that same day, when they ask Gabby to come home.

That is the same day BL went for his hike, and, according to police, may well be the date he committed suicide. Florida police say there’s a ‘good possibility’ Brian Laundrie died in September

"there is a very good possibility Laundrie died two days after his fiance, Gabby Petito, was reported missing." ie two days after the 11th, on the 13th.

I also question, are people believing his parents deliberately encouraged and assisted their son to commit suicide, for the purpose of inflicting pain on the Petitos?

JMO

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Then we go back to the Laundries staying silent to not incriminate themselves. Can they be sued for exercising their Constitutional rights?

No. However, if the suit proceeds and there are depositions and/or a trial, the difference in a civil suit versus a criminal proceeding is that if taking the 5th amendment to remain silent so as not to self incriminate, an adverse inference can be drawn.

 

[RANCH]

No. However, if the suit proceeds and there are depositions and/or a trial, the difference in a civil suit versus a criminal proceeding is that if taking the 5th amendment to remain silent so as not to self incriminate, an adverse inference can be drawn.

What if during depositions for the civil case they admit that Brian told them Gabby was dead and they took advice from their lawyer to not talk to her parents or LE so as to not incriminate themselves?

 

[NCWatcher]

No. However, if the suit proceeds and there are depositions and/or a trial, the difference in a civil suit versus a criminal proceeding is that if taking the 5th amendment to remain silent so as not to self incriminate, an adverse inference can be drawn.

But what if there is a criminal proceeding looming? I honestly don't think there is in this case, but some "experts" have sworn up and down the L's will eventually face charges.